Customer Reviews

Chess: the History of a Game (Hardinge Simpole Chess Classics)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

murrrays history of chess is the one usually quoted but the book by richard eales is vastly more readable-the print is better and clearer-it is not packed with obscure footnotes and it is much more up to date. also - even if you cannot play chess at all -there is still plenty in this book to enjoy-no knowledge of the moves is required at all.eales also has the advantage of having written after the ussr took such an interest in chess and after bobby fischer had made his impact.for a good read on the history of the game this book has no equal.

Murray's A History of Chess (Oxford 1913) covered the early history of chess in great detail; Eales' Chess: the history of a game is the only recent work on the 1500-year history of chess by a professional historian. Eales covers the history of chess with more emphasis on modern chess than Murray. His judgements are reliable, with the many gaps in our knowledge acknowledged. Eales is a strong amateur player, which has helped him cover modern chess better than Murray (who was a weak player).
The present edition is a reprint of the original hardback edition (Batsford 1985). It is essential reading for anyone interested in the subject.

Who better to write about the History of Chess than a chess master and well established historian? In Eales' 'Chess - The History of a Game', we are taken through the various influences that cultures and social circles have had on chess through the years. Not only will this book interest the regular chess enthusiast - it will also provide a fascinating read for anyone interested in the evolution of a game - a game that ' has been variously described as a sport, a science or an art' and has captivated peoples for over a thousand years.

This is written for the Hardinge Simpole 2002 softcover. The narrative in this book is excellent. Eales writes a history readable for the layman. It is a complete history, from the origins in Islam through to the 1980s. This is, after all, a digital reprint of the 1985 publishing. Which brings me to why I rated this only 3 stars: the print is blurry. Simply put, it looks like poor quality photocopying. With the small font (definitely smaller than 12pt) the fuzzy quality is quite the eye strain.

This really nice hardcover book is part of of what I had accuulated as a several thousand volume chess library. Call me a chess nut or not, but in order to write about chess you must have some sampleS? Ha, Ha, to say the least - chess has made a living for me, therefore, I need to hear what others say about it in all fairness.
This is in my opinion the second best history of modern chess ever written (well "Murrays" - "History of Chess" cannot be beat for the "development of how chess is played" since the beginning of time, and "Olson's" - "The Chess Kings" in 2 volumes, cannot be beat for a more modern aspect over the last several hundred years).
This is a very good book if the last several hundrend years of chess history is what you are after along with "The Chess Kings". To be fair I must cetainly recommend getting both for the most comprehensive coverage of 1700 to present chess history.

Not since Murray's classic work of 1913 has there been a seriously researched history of chess which is also readable. Eales' Chess - The History of a Game takes the reader from the origins of chess over one thousand years ago down to modern competitive play where chess may be regarded as a high earning sport. Avoiding idle speculation, Richard Eales concentrates on what can be identified through archaeological and written evidence. This book remains the key text for lovers of chess history and is regarded by academics and enthusiasts alike as the most reliable work in this area.
Richard Eales has played chess for England and once tied for second prize in the British championship. He is a noted historian in his own right and has been Head of History at the University of Kent in Canterbury.

It seems to me that this book is like the 1985 Batsford version.

Why is it republished in 2002? Any new materials?

Just buy an old version of Murray and be done with it.